The Pentagon on Thursday confirmed the killing of Qassim Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite Qods Force, in Iraq.
The killing of one of Iran’s top military commanders means the elimination of a dangerous U.S. foe — but it also represents a risky escalation in a volatile feud that could backfire on U.S. personnel and allies in the Middle East and beyond.
The Pentagon confirmed Thursday that Qassim Soleimani, who leads Iran’s elite Quds force, was killed in what it termed a “defensive action.” Iraqi and other media said Soleimani died in an airstrike at Baghdad’s international airport. Some media accounts described the airstrike as coming from a U.S. drone, but the Pentagon did not specify.
“General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the Pentagon statement said. It blamed him for recent attacks on U.S. troops and the American embassy in Baghdad.“
Even the possibility that the U.S. directly targeted Soleimani – especially on Iraqi soil – sent shockwaves around the globe, spiking oil prices and leading to instant assessments of the potential fallout. U.S. officials have long depicted Soleimani as a paramilitary and terrorist mastermind, deemed responsible for attacks on American troops in Iraq and against U.S. interests all over the world.
Some current and former U.S. officials, as well as veteran Iran observers, said the killing was an escalatory move far beyond what they’d expected.
“There’s no chance in hell Iran won’t respond,” said Afshon Ostovar, an expert on Soleimani and author of “Vanguard of the Imam” a book about Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The strike, which also reportedly killed Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was traveling in the same convoy as Soleimani, even astonished some members of the Trump administration who said killing the Iranian general had never been seriously considered.
“I can’t believe it,” one U.S. official said. “The immediate concern for me is: What’s the next step from Iran? Is this the beginning of a regional conflagration?”
A former U.S. official who dealt with the Middle East said the strike was especially notable because it targeted the leader of a state apparatus, as opposed to a non-state actor.
“We need to be prepared that we’re now at war,” he said.
A second Middle Eastern official said that a retaliation by Iran – known for its own assassinations abroad – could occur anywhere.
………
- Discussion
-
BREAKING: The Pentagon confirmed that Qassim Soleimani, who led Iran’s elite Quds force, was killed in what it termed a “defensive action.” https://t.co/I0sOmLqyDZ
— POLITICO (@politico) January 3, 2020
Killing Soleimani is bigger than killing Bin Laden.
He was smarter, craftier, and more ruthless than UBL. He killed more people too. Including thousands of Americans.
He was a worthy adversary. He will never be forgotten.
I'm still celebrating his death.
— John Schindler (@20committee) January 3, 2020
🔥🔥 Iraqi TV Reports Strike Kills Powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander. The death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was reported in Iraqi and Lebanese official media. https://t.co/mJZx2aTlVe via @NYTimes
— D.K.R. Boyd (@ReflectingMan) January 3, 2020
For all the US troops killed & maimed by EFPs, for all the tortured & murdered Iranian dissidents, for all the Iraqis in the "wrong place" while walking down your own street….
There's not enough left of your killer tonight to fill a ziploc bag.
Good.
— John Schindler (@20committee) January 3, 2020
"Soleimani was a hero of the revolution and will now be regarded as an heir to Husayn ibn Ali, the martyr of Shia martyrs. Revenge will now rise to the very top of Iran's agenda." https://t.co/2GMz12gC18
— Tom Rogan (@TomRtweets) January 3, 2020
Errrrr. https://t.co/458odfiDIW
— Soren Dayton (@sorendayton) January 3, 2020
And from @RadioFreeTom, a national security professor at the Naval War College, a short six months ago: A wobbly Donald Trump decided not to strike #Iran. We should be glad. https://t.co/BhMMk4RBSM via @usatoday @usatodayopinion
— Jill Lawrence (@JillDLawrence) January 3, 2020
POTUS has spent years dumping all over his intel experts and his military commanders and criticizing them and accusing them of everything from incompetence to disloyalty. This is a miserable civ-mil situation to be in while whacking a top Iranian. Better hope they're ready. /2x
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 3, 2020
" This was a defensive act. If Iranian aggression continues we need to put their oil refineries on the target list. Iran needs to understand that we mean it. You’re not going to come after our people."
— Erin Banco (@ErinBanco) January 3, 2020
At this moment, I would like a little more specificity about our strategy from our commander in chief than this: https://t.co/TQQ7r9C3je
— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) January 3, 2020
It's very important that Suleimani was killed in Iraq. Why? Because American troops are lawfully in Iraq — there by congressional authorization and with the permission of the Iraqi government. Moreover, they have a right of self-defense. /2
— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020
Iranian-backed militias attacked U.S. troops lawfully present in a combat zone under valid legal authorities. Moreover, America's military response isn't limited to immediate self-defense or tit for tat. It can act to remove the threat. That threat includes enemy commanders. /4
— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020
Suleimani was an evil, evil man. There is much American blood on his hands. And he was killed lawfully, in a properly constitutionally-authorized conflict. There is much risk and peril to come, but Trump's action was constitutionally legitimate, and that matters. A lot. /End
— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020
NEW: Trump told his Mar-a-Lago buddies to expect ‘big’ Iran action days before the Soleimani hit.
In other words, randos at Trump's club knew more about the strike before members of Congress.https://t.co/I8FJHUoogn via @thedailybeast
— Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) January 4, 2020
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it’s good that a major terrorist figure has been killed before he could do even more harm. On the other hand, major retaliation from Iran is a huge threat. Plus oil prices are rising and the stock market took a hit on Friday. That hit could go on for days or weeks, wiping out the market’s recent gains (and for some of us, our nest eggs).
And our military is being deployed again to Iraq. I had hoped we were done there — fighting a war that politicians had no intention of winning. If we are going to send our troops back there and elsewhere in the Middle East, let’s hope this time it’s with the purpose of winning.
If we were actually *at war* with Iran itself, sure, Iran would try to kill him, and Esper and anyone else. That's war. But QS was playing in the shadows, leading actions deniable by the Iranian regime while killing Americans. This made him a legit target long before Trump. /2
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 4, 2020
"Oh, this is like the Iranians killing Milley or Esper" is just plain stupid. We don't have an equivalent to Soleimani, and if he did, he'd be a target for whatever government he was terrorizing from behind the scenes. Soleimani was a general; he was also a terrorist. /4
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 4, 2020
Whether that was the right move *right now*, I don't know. But the chances anyone – not just us – were gonna let that guy retire and go play with his grandkids were always low. So just drop this dumb analogy and take a deep breath for a day. /6x
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 4, 2020
Looks like someone in the NSC or Pentagon is settling all family business while they've got Trump in the mood to say yes, and doing it before he changes his mind. https://t.co/U4KsMGzQHn
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 4, 2020
Wow. Worse than I thought. I assumed someone in the Pentagon wanted to go after Soleimani. If this is accurate, they were trying to get him to take a less nutty option, sot they played the the "Nicias in Syracuse" gambit and the President bit on it anyway. Yikes. https://t.co/CEnc9AbeeJ
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 5, 2020
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.